Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Donald Trump

by

motherhood-7114294_1280Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, except in class action lawsuits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least three different lawsuits had secured nationwide injunctions protecting all individuals potentially affected by Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, the Court’s ruling scaled back those protections, potentially leaving some children unprotected.

To safeguard all families across the country and address any gaps left by prior legal actions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump to stop the government’s enforcement of the order against all current or future babies born or after February 20, 2025, where:

(1) that child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth, or

(2) that child’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth.

The U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order from being enforced against any affected baby born in the United States after February 20th.

Continue reading

by
Gavin_Newsom_by_Gage_Skidmore

Attribution: Gage Skidmore

On Friday July 11, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the government’s ongoing immigration raids in Southern California and its denial of legal counsel to detained immigrants likely violates the Constitution.

In so ruling, the court issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) barring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies from continuing these actions in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem (2:25-cv-05605)

The first TRO prohibits immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and bars law enforcement from relying solely on the following factors—alone or in combination—to form reasonable suspicion for a stop including (1) apparent race or ethnicity (2) speaking Spanish or English with an accent (3) presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, day laborer pick up site, or agricultural site, or (4) the type of work the person does.

The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for those who are detained in B-18, the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles located at 300 North Los Angeles Street.

It further requires immigration officials to develop guidance on how agents and officers should determine whether “reasonable suspicion” exists when conducting stops and to implement training for officers involved in immigration operations.

In addition to immigration officers, the TROs apply to the FBI and Justice Department, who are named in the lawsuit and are involved in immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280A new lawsuit filed by a man detained in San Diego, California, is challenging the controversial practice of courthouse arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking place in recent months. The case could offer critical insight into the government’s approach in making these arrests. (A.M. v. Larose (3:25-cv-01412))

The man identified in court filings as A.M. is seeking asylum in the United States after being subjected to torture in his home country from his human rights advocacy. On June 3, he arrived for what he believed would be a routine immigration court hearing but was shocked to find that the judge had dismissed his case and ICE agents were waiting outside, ready to arrest him and take him to Otay Mesa’s Detention Facility to eventually be deported.

Unfortunately, A.M.’s case is not unique. In recent months, the Trump administration has enforced a controversial policy in immigration courts to expedite deportations by instructing judges to swiftly dismiss cases, subjecting individuals to expedited removal without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s claims or consult attorneys.

This approach, detailed in a May 30 directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, encourages judges to grant oral motions to dismiss without the standard 10-day response period, effectively eliminating opportunities for individuals to contest their cases. Once dismissed, individuals are immediately eligible for expedited removal, making it possible for ICE officers to arrest them.

Continue reading

by

gavel-7499921_1280In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday a federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) benefits for Haitians ahead of schedule, ruling that DHS violated the law in attempting to strip deportations and work permits from over half a million Haitians.

The ruling comes in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt announcement that it would be terminating Haiti’s TPS designation effective September 2, 2025.

In a decision issued Tuesday, District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan found that accelerating the program’s expiration by at least five months was unlawful and that the government failed to follow required procedures mandated by Congress, such as conducting a review of current conditions in Haiti before ending its TPS designation—a requirement that was not followed in this case.

Continue reading

by

sarah-kranz-pKqAaTUi0wg-unsplash-scaledIn a significant ruling handed down on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizens.

While the justices did not rule on the legality of the President’s executive order, this decision is an extraordinary victory for the Trump administration, because it hinders lower courts from intervening in potentially illegal actions by the government.

Historically, lower courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions early in litigation to block government conduct that could cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs pending judicial review.

The court’s decision to restrain judges from providing such relief is a remarkable departure from historic precedent and ventures into dangerous territory. It further indicates that the balance of power on the Supreme Court has clearly shifted in Trump’s favor, with six conservative justices backing his position.

What it Means

The ruling means that lower courts cannot stop the enforcement of the executive order on a nationwide basis for affected individuals. The executive order can only be suspended against individuals who have filed lawsuits against the government (either as individual plaintiffs or in class actions) or where a state has issued a state-wide injunction.

It will take time before the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the constitutionality of the executive order, with some legal experts suggesting the process could stretch on for years.

It is also uncertain whether this decision could restrict future nationwide blocks on controversial laws, particularly in other immigration and civil rights cases against the government.

Continue reading

by

haiti-162313_1280On Friday June 27, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that the government will not renew Temporary Protected Status (TPS) benefits for Haiti once the current designation expires on August 3, 2025.

Beneficiaries will be granted a 60-day transition period to make preparations to either depart the United States or seek alternative lawful immigration status in the United States, before Haiti’s designation officially terminates on September 2, 2025.

Employment Authorization

Continue reading

by

lawyer-3819044_1280The growing presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials at immigration courthouses nationwide has prompted several states to enact laws preventing ICE from arresting or detaining individuals attending their immigration hearings.

One such law passed by the state of New York is the “Protect Our Courts Act,” which shields individuals from being arrested by federal immigration authorities like ICE while traveling to, attending, or leaving court proceedings. This law is designed to guarantee that people can access the justice system without fearing immigration-related repercussions. It forbids arrests in these situations unless a judicial warrant or court order is shown to court personnel.

On June 12th the Justice Department sued the state of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act under the supremacy clause. The government argues that it unlawfully obstructs federal immigration enforcement operations.

The Trump administration is seeking to invalidate these laws to facilitate detention and removal. According to the government, arrests at courthouses helps prevent individuals from evading authorities and decreases safety risks because of the security offered by courthouses.

In response to the lawsuit, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement defending the state law adding, “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in our laws would push immigrant communities further into the shadows, throw due process out the window, and weaken trust in our justice system — making everyone less safe. It sends a dangerous message: that ICE can and should operate wherever it wants, regardless of the human cost.”

Continue reading

by

media-998990_1280On June 18, 2025, the State Department announced that U.S. Embassies and Consulates around the world will resume scheduling appointments for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas, introducing new guidance that includes stricter vetting procedures and an expanded review of applicants’ social media activity.

Moving forward, all F, M, and J nonimmigrants applying for visas at U.S. Consulates overseas will be instructed to change their social media privacy settings to “public” so that they can be reviewed by Consular officers. Those who fail to comply may be presumed to be evading the vetting process and risk having their application denied.

Under the State Department’s new policy that views a U.S. visa as a privilege rather than a right, these enhanced screening and vetting measures aim to identify individuals who may present a threat to our national security.

As part of the process, visa officers will closely examine applications to confirm both the applicant’s eligibility for the requested visa and their intent to carry out activities aligned with the purpose of their entry into the United States. Internal guidance sent to Consular officers also states that officers should look for, “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.”

Continue reading

by

investigation-9604083_1280On June 4, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the agency will expand its efforts to crackdown on visa overstays, due to a recent terrorist attack in Boulder Colorado. The attack was perpetrated by an Egyptian national who had been in the United States unlawfully since overstaying his visa in 2022.

What this Means

  • Swift policy action: Under Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s directive, federal partners are now reviewing immigration files more aggressively, identifying visa overstays, and initiating enforcement actions
Continue reading

by

passport-8621284_1280

Harvard Travel Ban Blocked by Federal Judge

Earlier this month President Trump had signed an Executive Order suspending the entry of all nonimmigrants and exchange visitors attending Harvard University, for a period of 6 months starting June 4th (the effective date of the proclamation).

Those affected by the executive order were F, J, and M visa holders outside of the United States as of the date of the proclamation. The suspension did not apply to nonimmigrants entering the United States to attend other universities.

Shortly after the executive order was issued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting its enforcement until the court can rule on the merits of the case.

Following the court’s actions, the State Department ordered embassies and consulates around the world to resume visa processing for Harvard University students and exchange visitors.

As a result, Harvard students can breathe easier. While the preliminary injunction remains in effect, consulates are barred from denying visas to Harvard students and exchange visitors, and visa holders attending Harvard cannot be refused entry to the United States.

For more information, please click here.

Continue reading